A prominent BitTorrent piracy ring, busted up last fall, is now facing six …

According to an indictment unsealed this week, the four alleged members of the BitTorrent movie release group IMAGiNE have now been charged with one count of "Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Copyright Infringement," four counts of "Criminal Copyright Infringement," and one count of "Distribution of a Work Being Prepared for Commercial Distribution." Each count brings a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison.

The group, which TorrentFreak called "one of the P2P scene’s most prominent release groups," was busted up by federal authorities in September 2011. It is not very common for BitTorrent-related groups to be split apart with federal criminal charges brought against them.

Court documents filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia report that the lead defendant, Jeramiah B. Perkins (aliases: "Butch Perkins," "Stash," and "theestas") was arrested and then released on bail on Monday. The other defendants are Gregory Cherwonik, 53, of New York, Willie Lambert, 57, of Pennsylvania, and Sean Lovelady, 27, of California.

The four are accused of running their BitTorrent ring from September 2009 to September 2011, where they allegedly would "cam" new movies showing in theaters. While one person was capturing the video, someone else would capture the audio portion in theaters and drive-ins. Then, according to the indictment, the defendants would allegedly "digitally refine" and "edit" the audio and video files before releasing them over BitTorrent.

Specifically, the group is charged with seeding copies of The Men Who Stare At Goats, Avatar, Clash of the Titans, and others. In some cases, they took advantage of the movie theater’s infrared or FM audio system, usually used by people with hearing impairments. Both systems work by transmitting the audio from the control room to individual headsets equipped with a receiver.

In the indictment, Perkins, 40, is quoted as telling Lambert on the group’s message board in July 2010: "I called every local cinema to see what they broadcasted in," adding that "I told them a bs sob story bro…told the manager i had a hearing impaired daughter and she had a phobia about other peoples heads being on there in house equipment so i told them i was going to buy her one, so they would find out and tell me then…"

It appears that the group would often bring their own infrared receivers and would record audio directly from that device. Five days later, Perkins told the group to "wear the IR receiver high around your neck and just put the plugged in recorder in your pocket or somewhere hidden."

Perkins is now scheduled to be arraigned on May 9, 2012 in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia.

What really gets me about all this is these people serve content to a certain audience, call them what you like but, you really think they are actually hurting sales?

If people are willing to watch a movie that is somewhere between VHS and DVD quality with audio that has been broadcasted over FM then re-encoded a second time OR from a microphone and recorder do you really think they were ever going to pay and watch a movie in the theater or buy a DVD at home?

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

I never understood the fascination with cams. The image is crappy and the sound is washed out. My back log of movies and games is so great that waiting does not seem that much of a chore. From what I read whenever Steam has a super sale most people also have huge media back logs. So who is watching them?

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

Well that part is easy to understand, prison because they want to make it sound like they are a criminal organization making tons of profits from pirated movies. In actuality it's likely just freely available via torrent sites so they only thing I can see is speculated losses. But, maybe I'm wrong and they really were selling the content.

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

How much do you pay the radio station when you listen to the radio?

If he is recording on audio media, a portion of the sales is rebated back to the RIAA.

Unbelievable that the garbage recording of a movie with a camera and equally garbage audio will get you at least 5 years in a Federal Pen plus whatever they tack on for their "Supervised Release".These guys will get as much time I did for Cocaine Trafficking in 1987.I did 7 years in the Fed system then for an 1/8 Ounce of Coke as I took the Guilty route.Could not fight it and would not Co-Operate.I did time in Lewisburg Penitentiary and I am proud to not ever have rolled over on anyone.

What really gets me about all this is these people serve content to a certain audience, call them what you like but, you really think they are actually hurting sales?

If people are willing to watch a movie that is somewhere between VHS and DVD quality with audio that has been broadcasted over FM then re-encoded a second time OR from a microphone and recorder do you really think they were ever going to pay and watch a movie in the theater or buy a DVD at home?

Effen a, of course not.

That is not really the question. The real question is whether those people that are fine with crappy video and crappy audio were ever going to watch the movie on pay TV (HBO, Showtime, etc) or on basic cable or free TV (or any other medium), and instead of being part of that audience they watched the cammed version. I would be that if someone's interest was enough to watch a crappy version, but not enough to watch in the theater or on DVD, then they were probably pretty likely to be perfectly happy with a pan and scan version on HBO or even an edited for TV version on network TV, but having seen the cammed version were no longer likely to watch another crappy version in the future, for which folks were paid.

You don't pay for the radio, you presumably listen to the advertising. Other countries don't do advertising on the radio, you buy a license for a receiver! That's why I hate going to movies in theatres now. You get 10 to 15 minutes of advertising BEFORE the movie starts.

I wait for the DVD's. There is a bit of inverted correspondence to the length you have to wait. If the time is short, the movie is crap. If its a year or more, its a pretty good one.

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

How much do you pay the radio station when you listen to the radio?

If he is recording on audio media, a portion of the sales is rebated back to the RIAA.

I thought that was only in Canada. I didn't think the US had a law like that on the books.

Regarding who watches these 'cam' copies - well, my father-in-law (very non-tech savvy) occasionally goes to flea markets where he is amazed at their low-cost selection of DVD movies, some of which are still in theatre. They are almost always these poor-quality cams, but hey, he gets to see a new movie for a buck or two at home.

"What really gets me about all this is these people serve content to a certain audience, call them what you like but, you really think they are actually hurting sales?

If people are willing to watch a movie that is somewhere between VHS and DVD quality with audio that has been broadcasted over FM then re-encoded a second time OR from a microphone and recorder do you really think they were ever going to pay and watch a movie in the theater or buy a DVD at home?

Effen a, of course not. "

It's not about that though. It's about people accessing the content without paying for it, despite the filmmakers' and theater owners' wishes. That's all. If you don't like the rules or the content feel free not to watch. This isn't some inalienable right.

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation

The radio station intentionally broadcasts to the world at large while the movie theater makes a reasonable attempt to prevent that.

The RIAA doesn't want you to be able to record from the radio, or format shift to a new format (CD->mp3), or transfer music from your old player to a new one and has characterized each of those things as theft.

First (and only) cam I ever saw was of the Matrix. The best part was when some one got punched in the back of the head. It was like it happened in the the theater instead of on screen!! The 3D effects back then make Avatar look like crap!

It's not about that though. It's about people accessing the content without paying for it, despite the filmmakers' and theater owners' wishes. That's all. If you don't like the rules or the content feel free not to watch. This isn't some inalienable right.

It seems that many people have a real problem with that. Theft or not, legal or not, if the content creator, be they a single individual or a mega-corporation, does not wish to give it away for free, that is *their* right. Taking or benefiting without permission/authorization is, well, stealing. (You do not need to relieve someone of physical possession of a thing for it to be stealing)

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

It's worth pointing out that time-shifting and format-shifting are considered "fair use" when it is for your own use. That's kinda key. I can record a radio show or TV show to listen/watch later, and that is considered fair use. I can format shift my CDs into MP3s for my iPod, or my ePubs into Mobipocket for my Kindle, and that's fair use (at least with what legal precedent exists in these cases). It's really hard to claim either situation here:

- "I was time-shifting it for my own use so I could watch it later, since I didn't have time in the theater." - "Then why were you in the theater the whole time during the recording? Also, why not just find a showing that meets your schedule?"

- "I was format-shifting it because my eyeballs are not compatible with theater screens."- "..."

Plus, when you have intent to distribute, you are then talking about something different than fair use. The core idea behind Copyright is that the creator gets a time-limited monopoly on the work with the intent of making full-time careers in this sort of thing viable. Now, the time-limited part has been distorted, and fair use is in a weird spot with the advent of digital technology (something that wasn't even dreamed of when copyright was first established in the US). Won't get much argument from me on that part. But intentionally creating copies without permission to distribute to the world is precisely the thing that the act even in its first incarnation was against. The act effectively told creators "We want you to publish, create and make your work available, and in return, we will give you the force of law to protect this time-limited monopoly on your work."

Batmanuel wrote:

C Boy wrote:

If he is recording on audio media, a portion of the sales is rebated back to the RIAA.

I thought that was only in Canada. I didn't think the US had a law like that on the books.

It isn't a law really, but did you ever wonder why "Audio" CD-Rs cost more than "Data" CD-Rs when they were the same dead dinosaur disc? The difference is that the RIAA gets a cut.

So it's legal to record a song on the radio because of quality degradation, but illegal to make a much crappier quality of a movie? And anyway, how do you justify prison time for something like this? You don't get prison time for petty theft, and this isn't even theft (even in the most absurd of hypothetical senses). Gotta love the freeforall that is IP law.

Recording a song on the radio is legal. The log has nothing to do with quality degradation: you are not paying to listen to the song in the first place, so it doesn't make sense to restrict your right to listen to it a second time. However, it's not legal to distribute that recording, as you don't have a license from the Copyright holder to do so.

In the case of movies shown in a theater, the theater is charging people to see the movie. Therefore, you are depriving the theater of its rightful income by recording and re-watching the movie. Furthermore, distributing it is illegal also.

As to "petty theft"... this crosses the line in to Criminal Copyright Infringement when you distribute material via a computer network.

How is that "obviously" an IR receiver? I don't see an IR sensor anywhere on that board, but I do see an antenna wire (at the bottom, between the volume control and the clear plastic enclosure that I'm assuming is a variable capacitor for tuning the receiver.)

It's not about that though. It's about people accessing the content without paying for it, despite the filmmakers' and theater owners' wishes. That's all. If you don't like the rules or the content feel free not to watch. This isn't some inalienable right.

It seems that many people have a real problem with that. Theft or not, legal or not, if the content creator, be they a single individual or a mega-corporation, does not wish to give it away for free, that is *their* right. Taking or benefiting without permission/authorization is, well, stealing. (You do not need to relieve someone of physical possession of a thing for it to be stealing)

It is amazing that people endorse theft that benefits them, yet condemn thieves acting in their own self-interest when it doesn't benefit them.

This is very simple; if you watch it, download it, rip it, etc... it has value to you. If it had no value to you, you wouldn't be consuming the media in the first place. I know it's easy to justify theft when it's an "evil corporation" that you don't care about, but consider how you would feel if you took a year of your time to produce a book, software, art, etc... all to have some little s#it download your hard work because "information wants to be free!!1".

I'm no fan of the MPAA or RIAA, but the more extreme the position of the content-pirate becomes, the more extreme they are going to become in response. There is a middle-ground somewhere, between the idiotic extremes of "all information is free" and "you downloaded a record and now you're going to lose your house". Neither side is innocent in this one (although both sides seem to believe they are the poor victim of the other).

Edit: I completely agree with the posters I quoted... just realized my comment might be taken as a rebuttal, I meant it as a corollary.

What really gets me about all this is these people serve content to a certain audience, call them what you like but, you really think they are actually hurting sales?

Well, I can safely say I bought and rented more movies and games and purchased more CDs before I learned to how to use P2P networks. And I think there are a hell of a lot more like me, but most won't admit they're hurting sales.

It's not about that though. It's about people accessing the content without paying for it, despite the filmmakers' and theater owners' wishes. That's all. If you don't like the rules or the content feel free not to watch. This isn't some inalienable right.

It seems that many people have a real problem with that. Theft or not, legal or not, if the content creator, be they a single individual or a mega-corporation, does not wish to give it away for free, that is *their* right. Taking or benefiting without permission/authorization is, well, stealing. (You do not need to relieve someone of physical possession of a thing for it to be stealing)

Exactly. I'm probably more sensitive to it because I'm an artist and writer. But no matter who's doing it, this mentality of current people that they're somehow owed free stuff is just mind-boggling to me, Especially since they use all this cutesy lawyer-speak about how it's perfectly fine because digital copies don't quality for this and that.. meahwhile they're paying how much a month for their smartphones and other devices they use to access all this stuff? Just stop lying, at the very least.

gmdub wrote:

It is amazing that people endorse theft that benefits them, yet condemn thieves acting in their own self-interest when it doesn't benefit them.

This is very simple; if you watch it, download it, rip it, etc... it has value to you. If it had no value to you, you wouldn't be consuming the media in the first place. I know it's easy to justify theft when it's an "evil corporation" that you don't care about, but consider how you would feel if you took a year of your time to produce a book, software, art, etc... all to have some little s#it download your hard work because "information wants to be free!!1".

I'm no fan of the MPAA or RIAA, but the more extreme the position of the content-pirate becomes, the more extreme they are going to become in response. There is a middle-ground somewhere, between the idiotic extremes of "all information is free" and "you downloaded a record and now you're going to lose your house". Neither side is innocent in this one (although both sides seem to believe they are the poor victim of the other).

Edit: I completely agree with the posters I quoted... just realized my comment might be taken as a rebuttal, I meant it as a corollary.

I completely agree. It's interesting how the people doing this stuff signed things like google's petition, which clearly stated "stop piracy" before the "not freedom" part. Yet the same people went onto countless forums bragging about how much they pirate and why it's okay, and every post from creators complaining about it (or even songs, which have repeatedly been made talking about how it hurts artists) is dismissed out of hand as whining. I hate to think that we can't just leave it up to people to behave responsibly, and I still hate DRM-type restrictions on owned content but I don't know what the happy middle ground is here. It's very frustrating.